Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

My point is that no one person or thing gives us the mandate. History has shown us that certain events and persons in the right place and time cause a tipping point where a society changes. Rather than wait to for that to happen in the likes of Afghanistan, we are right to take action to try and influence and cause that tipping point right now.

Certainly no mandate will occur where none is initiated; the question then remains as to who, and when. Empowering women is obviously key but who in this culture will make that claim?

In that case this has been an argument to nothing about acceptability and we should just concentrate on what to do about it.

I say it is right to interfere in their culture by means of supporting and encouraging campaigns to have honour killings stopped and to make it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable in our countries and they cannot do such and will be punished way more than they are at home.

I say it is right to support and encourage internal campaigns to have honour killings stopped and to make it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable in our countries and they cannot do such and will be punished way more than they are at home.

I have amended your statement to show the parts I agree with. Why did you make it so difficult?!

__________________The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James

I have amended your statement to show the parts I agree with. Why did you make it so difficult?!

I did not think I had made it so difficult. I had researched the issue and come to the conclusion that honour killing is part of their culture, but in my view it is wrong and we are right to take action by supporting campaigns to have it stopped. I had done that by the end of page 1 of this thread.

I understand it is immoral to us and not to them. In any case there are very rigid social structures elsewhere in the world, including in the Middle East, where honour killings are not accepted.

Yes, but they are different cultures in other respects as well. I would lay odds that these other cultures don't perceive the same gravity of consequence for loss of family honor, just for starters.

Quote:

We upset our own apple cart to the benefit of the whole of society by abolishing slavery. We recognised ourselves that it was wrong and did something about it. I do not see why we should wait around for those cultures who honour kill to do the same. It is called learning from your mistakes.

We didn't upset the apple cart as much as you may believe (and this is not to diminish the brave sacrifices and contributions of abolitionists during that era). The Industrial revolution had more to do with abolition than John Brown or Nat Turner. The changing economic landscape is what brought about the end of slavery. See that in England the institution and trade were outlawed before they were here in the US.

And even when slavery was ended in the US, the objective economic reality for blacks was largely unchanged for a century afterwards. Sharecropping, segregation, lynching, and Jim Crow enforced material conditions on blacks that were hardly distinguishable from slavery in rural America.

The recognition that slavery was abhorrent was a luxury for those who didn't depend on it for the maintenance of their positions of cultural privilege. Yes, some people will sacrifice their material advantages for the sake of another, but it's not so easily done, especially if the alternative is a total surrender of ones security and protection.

I did not think I had made it so difficult. I had researched the issue and come to the conclusion that honour killing is part of their culture, but in my view it is wrong and we are right to take action by supporting campaigns to have it stopped. I had done that by the end of page 1 of this thread.

Then you came along and started arguing against me.

Actually I think you'll find one of my first posts is agreeing with you. But never mind...

__________________The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James

I think it's important to note here that NO ONE is expressing support for honor killings. The issue here is the idealist moral judgment being cast on the members of a particular culture (or more properly, cultures) for living within the expectations and confines of that culture.

It is easy for me to say that I wouldn't kill my daughter for dishonoring my family, sitting here in a culture where family honor carries little weight, but it would take a level of courage far outside of the bell curve to openly defy one of my own major cultural taboos. There isn't a lot of free will involved here. The "moral" condemnation of people who's morality is vastly different from our own is like condemning a person for not using the same monetary system we do.

This presupposes that there is no objective moral standard by which such practices can be judged. This is fundamental to the discussion. If one believes that it's possible to have an objective morality, then it's possible to view a system that allows children to be murdered by their parents as being inferior to a system that regards that as wrong.

If one doesn't accept objective morality, then it's difficult to see on what basis one can say that one culture is "better" than another. Even on a utilitarian basis, it's impossible to say that if the Afghans were to embrace Western culture, that it would lead to an improvement in their lives. We have the example in the USA of aboriginal peoples abandoning their traditional way of life for something closer to what is generally accepted. Are they "better" for it, if "better" is assigned some arbitrary value?

Quote:

No one is advocating that the horrible practice be allowed to continue unchecked. What is being argued is that culture can be changed from within, and trying to change if from without is generally counterproductive.

I suspect that culture can be changed from without, but only by use of considerable force. I don't have the figures, but I think it highly likely that the number of people killed in the war in Afghanistan greatly exceeds the number killed by their own families.

__________________Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

Yes, but they are different cultures in other respects as well. I would lay odds that these other cultures don't perceive the same gravity of consequence for loss of family honor, just for starters.

We didn't upset the apple cart as much as you may believe (and this is not to diminish the brave sacrifices and contributions of abolitionists during that era). The Industrial revolution had more to do with abolition than John Brown and Nat Turner. The changing economic landscape is what brought about the end of slavery. See that in England the institution and trade were outlawed before they were here in the US.

And even when slavery was ended in the US, the objective economic reality for blacks was largely unchanged for a century afterwards. Sharecropping, segregation, lynching, and Jim Crow enforced material conditions on blacks that were hardly distinguishable from slavery in rural America.

The recognition that slavery was abhorrent is a luxury for those who don't depend on it for the maintenance of their positions of cultural privilege. Yes, some people will sacrifice their material advantages for the sake of another, but it's not so easily done, especially if the alternative is a total surrender of ones security and protection.

I understand that, it is not as if slavery was abolished and stopped dead and everyone lived happily ever afterwards. Just like Sati was only legal in some Indian states before the British came along and made it completely illegal and then it continued despite the new law.

Sadly I doubt honour killings will end completely. I am sure this will be similar to the campaign against female circumcision, (Female Genital Mutilation) where studies have shown tradition is by the major reason as to why it happens

"FGM prevalence rates are slowly declining in some countries, as indicated by lower prevalence rates among adolescents (compared to older women). In Kenya, a 1991 survey showed that 78 percent of adolescents had undergone FGM, compared to 100 percent of women over 50.56 In the Sudan, another study revealed that the prevalence among 15- to 49-year-old women dropped from 99 percent in 1981 to 89 percent in 1990.57"

This presupposes that there is no objective moral standard by which such practices can be judged. This is fundamental to the discussion. If one believes that it's possible to have an objective morality, then it's possible to view a system that allows children to be murdered by their parents as being inferior to a system that regards that as wrong.

If one doesn't accept objective morality, then it's difficult to see on what basis one can say that one culture is "better" than another. Even on a utilitarian basis, it's impossible to say that if the Afghans were to embrace Western culture, that it would lead to an improvement in their lives. We have the example in the USA of aboriginal peoples abandoning their traditional way of life for something closer to what is generally accepted. Are they "better" for it, if "better" is assigned some arbitrary value?

This is exactly the point I struggle with. As a materialist I most assuredly don't believe that there is an objective morality. But at the same time, I see it in my best interests that there BE some sort of morality, and I'd like it if it were objective.

Trotsky wrote a long essay ([url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm]Their Morals and Ours[url]) about this very thing where he discussed the idea that morality has a class character.

"Whoever does not care to return to Moses, Christ or Mohammed; whoever is not satisfied with eclectic hodge-podges must acknowledge that morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing invariable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are contradictory; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character."

Quote:

I suspect that culture can be changed from without, but only by use of considerable force. I don't have the figures, but I think it highly likely that the number of people killed in the war in Afghanistan greatly exceeds the number killed by their own families.

Yes, on the body count, the Afghan women are much safer with their own culture than they are with US intervention. Of course, I don't think anyone here is endorsing the current application of US cultural engineering.

The majority of evolved human brains. In case you hadn't noticed, morality is a function of the human brain and it evolved so that most of us are born with certain preset values. Some people have defective moral sections of their brains just as some people have no joy and we diagnose that as a mental illness. In fact, people with specific kinds of brain damage demonstrate what happens when the moral part of one's brain is damaged.

Yes, people often override the moral inhibition to kill. First you have to define the person you want to kill as 'other than human'. That's what soldiers do. So the fact a culture defines looking at a boy as an offense punishable by death really is subject to scrutiny of the world body. We don't have differently evolved brains than these people.

This is exactly the point I struggle with. As a materialist I most assuredly don't believe that there is an objective morality. But at the same time, I see it in my best interests that there BE some sort of morality, and I'd like it if it were objective. ....

You might find a Google search for "the evolution of morality" will return some useful reading.

While an absolute measurement of things like beauty, love, and morality may not be as easy to pin down as pi, there is a neurobiological basis for these judgements. There is an objective component. Think of it more like a range than an absolute value, but still very much part of the material world.

I understand it is immoral to us and not to them. In any case there are very rigid social structures elsewhere in the world, including in the Middle East, where honour killings are not accepted.

We upset our own apple cart to the benefit of the whole of society by abolishing slavery. We recognised ourselves that it was wrong and did something about it. I do not see why we should wait around for those cultures who honour kill to do the same. It is called learning from your mistakes.

It's interesting that slavery has come up in this thread a few times. Nessie you're in Great Britain, right?

Per this BBC link, Great Britain took it upon herself to not only make slavery illegal in Great Britain, but to also ban trading in slavery on the Atlantic Ocean for everyone.

Quote:

While the 1807 act made trading in slaves illegal, there had been little consideration about how best to enforce the legislation.

<snip>

Ultimately, it took nearly 60 years of untiring diplomacy and naval patrolling to finally abolish the Atlantic slave trade.

<snip>

With peace in Europe from 1815, and British supremacy at sea secured, the Navy turned its attention back to the challenge and established the West Coast of Africa Station, known as the 'preventative squadron', which for the next 50 years operated against the slavers.

<snip>

The pursuit and capture of slave ships became celebrated naval engagements, widely reported back in peace-time Britain with its expanding print culture, and was often memorialised in souvenir engravings.

The night-time fire-fight of 6 June 1829 between the schooner 'Pickle' and the slaver 'Voladora' was well-known, as were the exploits of the schooner 'Monkey' against Spanish slave brigs off the Bahamas later that month.

HMS 'Buzzard' successfully chased and engaged the slaver 'Formidable' in 1834, the 'Electra' brought down a Carolina slaver with its human cargo in 1838, and 'Acorn' captured the rogue 'Gabriel' in the summer of 1841, to name just a few of the many sensationalised actions.

An expectant public could follow vivid accounts in the newspapers, while many of these 'battles' were also reported at home in watercolours and oil paintings, which helped sustain the positive reputation of the Navy, while also maintaining public interest in Britain's suppression activities.

Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against 'the usurping King of Lagos', deposed in 1851.

Lines between the politics of slavery suppression and British expansionist ambitions become blurred. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers, but British motives were not entirely altruistic.

An interesting example of how Great Britain decided to impose her standards of morality on other countries. I doubt that most people posting in this thread have a problem with that, given what the particular issue was despite the fact that slavery was condoned in many cultures and by many religions.

Given that slavery still exists illegally, I wouldn't be surprised if slavery would have been more widely practiced legally even to this day if abolitionists had not decided to try to impose their idea of what was just on others.

The majority of evolved human brains. In case you hadn't noticed, morality is a function of the human brain and it evolved so that most of us are born with certain preset values. Some people have defective moral sections of their brains just as some people have no joy and we diagnose that as a mental illness. In fact, people with specific kinds of brain damage demonstrate what happens when the moral part of one's brain is damaged.

Yes, people often override the moral inhibition to kill. First you have to define the person you want to kill as 'other than human'. That's what soldiers do. So the fact a culture defines looking at a boy as an offense punishable by death really is subject to scrutiny of the world body. We don't have differently evolved brains than these people.

That is a very good point. It is as if at some point in that past their brains were trained to over come somethings that the vast majority of people accept as normal, in this case killing the victim and/or killing for minor indiscretions.

It's interesting that slavery has come up in this thread a few times. Nessie you're in Great Britain, right?

Per this BBC link, Great Britain took it upon herself to not only make slavery illegal in Great Britain, but to also ban trading in slavery on the Atlantic Ocean for everyone.

An interesting example of how Great Britain decided to impose her standards of morality on other countries. I doubt that most people posting in this thread have a problem with that, given what the particular issue was despite the fact that slavery was condoned in many cultures and by many religions.

Given that slavery still exists illegally, I wouldn't be surprised if slavery would have been more widely practiced legally even to this day if abolitionists had not decided to try to impose their idea of what was just on others.

We have been great ones for imposing our ways on others, banning Sati and playing cricket being other notable ones. Of course the way it was done back then by direct rule and power would not work today.

Oh I see - it's our majority that gives us the right to police cultures who practice things we don't like, especially those with brains less evolved than ours, like Pakistanis and Middle Eastern types? Wow...

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In case you hadn't noticed, morality is a function of the human brain and it evolved so that most of us are born with certain preset values.

I hadn't noticed that. Do you have a link?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yes, people often override the moral inhibition to kill. First you have to define the person you want to kill as 'other than human'. That's what soldiers do.

OK... I was gonna ask for a link for that too, but given that's just your unsubstantiated opinion I won't bother. Thanks for confirming you're just blowing hot air out of where you sit.

We have been great ones for imposing our ways on others, banning Sati and playing cricket being other notable ones.

Hmmm, feel strongly about cricket I see.

Quote:

Of course the way it was done back then by direct rule and power would not work today.

True. The international reaction to the black civil rights movement in America during the 1960s, and international boycotts (including consumer, sports, investment, etc) against South Africa because of its system of apartheid plus support of the civil resistance movement in South Africa before the 1990s are examples of ways that would still work today.

The article is about how killing of civilians is still accepted and those who do it still go unpunished in modern wars. It shows the reason for that is the need to win the war outweighs the need not to kill civilians and killing civilians can be excused as unfortunate and a mistake and we have called it collateral damage. So our culture can still suspend the moral code of not killing civilians during wars.

The Afghan culture has found it self in a position where it has permanently decided that killing of daughters is OK, despite knowing killing is wrong overall and has come up with an excuse to do so called honour.

Ugh... No it's not. Have you even READ the abstract? I doubt you've read the whole article - you need an academic log in for that.

This is the first line of the abstract:

Quote:

The norm of civilian immunity, which holds that civilians must not be intentionally targeted in war or subjected to mass killing, is widely supported and considered a jus cogens principle of international law.

The first FIVE WORDS of the abstract ALONE completely contradicts your interpretation of the article being about 'How the killing of civilians is still accepted'.

Originally Posted by Nessie

T
The Afghan culture has found it self in a position where it has permanently decided that killing of daughters is OK, despite knowing killing is wrong overall and has come up with an excuse to do so called honour.

Wait.. What?! They just suddenly decided recently that they want to kill their daughters, and then retrospectively thought they could justify it by making up an excuse of doing it for honour?!

Oh god. I... Oh god.

__________________The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James

You quoted "The norm of civilian immunity, which holds that civilians must not be intentionally targeted in war or subjected to mass killing, is widely supported and considered a jus cogens principle of international law" which does contradict what I have said. But then what I have said becomes clear by including the next sentence "Yet not only does mass killing remain a recurrent feature of world politics, but perpetrators sometimes avoid criticism or punishment" So I have shown an instance of how whilst killing is not accepted, given some circumstances and it becomes accepted.

Strawman

"Wait.. What?! They just suddenly decided recently that they want to kill their daughters, and then retrospectively thought they could justify it by making up an excuse of doing it for honour?!". I did not say it was a recent development and if you go back to the links I first posted about honour killings and how they have developed you would see how they bare no relation to what you have said about retrospective justification. Anthropological studies suggest they developed for reasons of male dominance in the society,

"A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. .. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honour killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior. What's behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power."

"The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions."

"... the predominantly Kurdish area of Turkey, has so far shown that little if any social stigma is attached to honor killing. It also comments that the practice is not related to a feudal societal structure, "there are also perpetrators who are well-educated university graduates. Of all those surveyed, 60 percent are either high school or university graduates or at the very least, literate."

You quoted "The norm of civilian immunity, which holds that civilians must not be intentionally targeted in war or subjected to mass killing, is widely supported and considered a jus cogens principle of international law" which does contradict what I have said.

Yes it does.

Originally Posted by Nessie

But then what I have said becomes clear by including the next sentence "Yet not only does mass killing remain a recurrent feature of world politics, but perpetrators sometimes avoid criticism or punishment" So I have shown an instance of how whilst killing is not accepted, given some circumstances and it becomes accepted.

Except that what you said next was:

Quote:

and those who do it still go unpunished in modern wars

Which is not the same as

Quote:

but perpetrators sometimes avoid criticism or punishment

Bolding mine; do I have to explain why?

Anyway; there's no point arguing over an article you clearly haven't read and are not likely to be able to.

Originally Posted by Nessie

Strawman

Perhaps - but it was certainly not intentional...

Originally Posted by Nessie

Quote:

"Wait.. What?! They just suddenly decided recently that they want to kill their daughters, and then retrospectively thought they could justify it by making up an excuse of doing it for honour?!".

I did not say it was a recent development and if you go back to the links I first posted about honour killings and how they have developed you would see how they bare no relation to what you have said about retrospective justification. Anthropological studies suggest they developed for reasons of male dominance in the society,

Let's look at what you did say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie

The Afghan culture has found it self in a position where it has permanently decided that killing of daughters is OK, despite knowing killing is wrong overall and has come up with an excuse to do so called honour.

'Has permanently decided that killing of daughters is OK..' - 'has' again, suggesting recent developments. Also using the word 'decided', implies this was not something that began thousands of years ago and evolved, but a firm decision.

'Has come up with an excuse' - 'has' again, not 'had' - this whole sentence suggests that thousands of males across the Middle East consulted each other and came up with a unified decision along the lines of "Right - we like killing our daughters, but we're gonna need some sort of excuse if we want to keep doing it. Does everyone agree on 'Family Honour?'"

Now you may not think that's what you said, but can you see how it LOOKS like that's what you were saying? That's why I replied to you in the form of a question, because it LOOKED like that was what you were saying, and I was asking for confirmation.

So no Strawman.

Now let's have a look at your quotes:

Quote:

"A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. .. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honour killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior. What's behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power."

"The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions."

"... the predominantly Kurdish area of Turkey, has so far shown that little if any social stigma is attached to honor killing. It also comments that the practice is not related to a feudal societal structure, "there are also perpetrators who are well-educated university graduates. Of all those surveyed, 60 percent are either high school or university graduates or at the very least, literate."

see posts #37 and #42.

For reasons of male dominance? Quite possibly, but as you were cherry-picking through Wikipedia, you missed one:

Quote:

As noted by Christian Arab writer, Norma Khouri, honor killings originate from the belief that a woman’s chastity is the property of her families, a cultural norm that comes "from our ancient tribal days, from the Hammurabi and Assyrian tribes of 1200 B.C."

Originally Posted by Nessie

Argument by incredulity

Quote:

"Oh god. I... Oh god"

There's no argument there. Show me where you think there is one. Or I could save you time and just tell you that it is simply just the sounds of despair.

__________________The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James